LCA news and discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kakarat » 04 May 2010 16:24

LCA-Tejas has completed 1350 Test Flights successfully. (27-Apr-10).

* LCA has completed 1350 Test Flights successfully
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-139,PV3-211,LSP1-59,LSP2-148,PV5-12,LSP3-01).

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 04 May 2010 16:49

"Eventually, the integration of the flight control laws was done indigenously by the NAL team. It has been successful; one of the test pilots said that he found it easier to take off with LCA than Mirage. The LCA has been given Level 1 (top-most) rating by all its Test pilots."

http://www.lca-tejas.org/history.html

If LCA is rated high by it's test pilots, why don't we see enthusiasm from iaf to induct this in large numbers? Is there some other reason for this?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Sanku » 04 May 2010 16:51

aditya.agd wrote:If LCA is rated high by it's test pilots, why don't we see enthusiasm from iaf to induct this in large numbers? Is there some other reason for this?


Yes, the test pilots haven't said that others can play with it yet.

Can we please close this line of discussion now?

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RKumar » 04 May 2010 16:57

Sanku wrote:Can we please close this line of discussion now?


Why should we close this line of discussion now? When it is the most important topic, especial after last reports, top guns of IAF are having fun with it.. please go back few pages and check.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Sanku » 04 May 2010 17:04

RKumar wrote:
Sanku wrote:Can we please close this line of discussion now?


Why should we close this line of discussion now? When it is the most important topic, especial after last reports, top guns of IAF are having fun with it.. please go back few pages and check.


Yes it is, I didnt understand, apologies carry on.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby bhavik » 04 May 2010 17:38

Sanku wrote:
aditya.agd wrote:If LCA is rated high by it's test pilots, why don't we see enthusiasm from iaf to induct this in large numbers? Is there some other reason for this?


Yes, the test pilots haven't said that others can play with it yet.

Can we please close this line of discussion now?


Then IAF should cancel the order for 40 LCA too? Right?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 04 May 2010 17:47

bhavik wrote:I guess you mean ROI has got nothing to do with economics. Also MKI is different bird altogether. Here we discussing the squadron stength and fit for purpose stuff.


ROI WRT upgrades and not exports (as in your post)

I went thru previous posts and GE Vs EADS atleast 2 articles point out that one of them shall not need structural changes.
Also since it is not been finalized it is only in dreams to expect major structural changes in MK2


The most detailed I have come across:

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories488.htm wrote:For the Tejas to be able to take in an EJ200, the engine will need “minor” modifications. These include some changing to the mounting assembly, a different hydraulic pump and an additional generator pack for starters. In addition, engine interfaces might need changes depending on how the LCA is configured.


The point being, no matter what there will need to be some modifications. Even with a greater thrust the in-takes will need to be modified.

Thats what I say MK2 stuff is diversion tactic. Rather we should discuss why has IAF ordered only 40 LCA's?


Nothing to "discussed". The IAF says so - per CAS. IAF was the one to demand a MKII!!!! The arguments were provided by the IAF. They decided on 40 first and no more. (To me it looks like a sound decision PROVIDED MKII is a possibility - which it seems so far. I feel technically it is feasible. Otherwise, I cannot say.)

Of course we should get MK2 when it is available.


Sure. We all agree with that.

Whole point of MK2 / MK3 leads to believe there planes with different calibre and not the orginal intelligent visionary ASR
hence one day
LCA MK3 = MCA MK1


Until that happens, it is a dream.


NRao wrote:On bigger radar for a bigger engine, an engine is a constraint when it comes to what other components can be installed. Electrical power, cooling, etc are governed by the size/power of an engine. So, with a more powerful engine in a MKII one would expect a more powerful radar (than the one in the MKI), and a more powerful radar could mean a larger antenna, etc. The whole ball of wax changes - missiles, testing, integration, weight of the air craft, distribution of weight within the air craft ............ With the fun comes a bunch of headaches. Way before exports, etc.


I don''t quite agree.
Bigger engine does not mean necessarily bigger radar you could still carry smaller one if it fits your purpose.
For e.g many Jags still dont have any radar. recently heard some jags were fitted with radar.


If you do not agree, that is OK. The issue is do you understand? As long as you understand it is fine with me.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 17:56

for the above series of posts

a) because it is not ready YET.
b) because 40 is a good enough number for an initial production run that would eventually have to give way to the Mk2. it takes time effort and money to start mass production, it doesn't make economic sense to order 100(say) Mk1 when the Mk2 is around the corner
c) 40 is quite a large number in itself for the IAF, that's about as many Mirage-2000 we had for a loooong time
d) when it enters service Mk1 would be roughly equivalent to the mirage-2000 in terms of capabilities, Mk2 would go well beyond that.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 04 May 2010 17:58

bhavik wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Yes, the test pilots haven't said that others can play with it yet.

Can we please close this line of discussion now?


Then IAF should cancel the order for 40 LCA too? Right?


No cancel the M/MRCA order and use these 40 LCAs as M/MRCAs.

Thank you.

RM,

I disagree.

You make too much sense.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Sanku » 04 May 2010 18:08

bhavik wrote:
Sanku wrote:aditya.agd">>
If LCA is rated high by it's test pilots, why don't we see enthusiasm from iaf to induct this in large numbers? Is there some other reason for this?

Yes, the test pilots haven't said that others can play with it yet.

Can we please close this line of discussion now?


Then IAF should cancel the order for 40 LCA too? Right?


Perhaps, If you think that 40 is not large numbers for a initial order and IAF should either order large numbers of LCA or none, that is.

Sure, that logic makes sense, let ask IAF to order either large orders of LCAs or cancel even 40.

What your favorite number btw, what is the large number of LCAs IAF should order in what time frame? Short of which all other numbers are crappy which dont show proper "enthusiasm?"
100 in 1 year?
200 in 5?

Go ahead dont be shy, we had some one telling us that the 123 deal would mean 200 new nuclear reactors by 2050, (which was scaled down to 50 by that time frame) so all yours.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Pratyush » 04 May 2010 19:16

Hi all, it is almost being taken as an article of faith that the air intakes of Tejas will need modification for MK 2. I wish to examine this assumption.

Is it some thing that is really required??

Considering the Kavari was always intended to provide approx 15 to 20 % more thrust as compared to GE 404 which brings it ( Kaveri ) into the GE 414 of Ej 200 class in terms of power. Also the Tejas was originally intended to use Kaveri. That being the case only 7 GE 404s were acquired as the plan was to develop Kaveri. Only later additional 40 Ge 404 engines were acquired which incidentally also is the total number of MK 1s that have been ordered. (am not aware of any subsequent orders for 404. Though a tender is in process for 199 additional powerplants for which EJ and Ge are competing). As Kaveri did not meet development goals.

Considering the fact that Kaveri was to leverage on 404 it (kaveri) should have been be able to fit the LCA without any major redesign. Also the design ought to have factored the additional air in flow as mandated by a higher thrust engine as well as the dimension of the engine at the design stage it self.

If a redesign is still required because of airflow issue of a higher thrust engine. The same should have been observed in the preliminary analysis of the airflow itself. Leading to a redesigned inlet by now in a flying airframe. This has not happened as yet. This leads me to conclude that no inlet modification is required for the installation of a higher thrust engine.

So am still left with a question. What exactly is MK 2??

A simple answer reading the above seems to me as an airframe with the new engine with a preliminary production run of 199 aircrafts. Keeping in view the tender for a new engine.

Why?

Because the IAF will not acquire a second rate aircraft when it knows it can always import a top of the line aircraft. Having said so I believe that the Tejas compares very favourly with the best of the world as the confirmed and potential orders are 40 and 199 respectively.

Did the last made sense.

JMT

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Raveen » 04 May 2010 20:02

Pratyush wrote:Hi all, it is almost being taken as an article of faith that the air intakes of Tejas will need modification for MK 2. I wish to examine this assumption.

Is it some thing that is really required??

Considering the Kavari was always intended to provide approx 15 to 20 % more thrust as compared to GE 404 which brings it ( Kaveri ) into the GE 414 of Ej 200 class in terms of power. Also the Tejas was originally intended to use Kaveri. That being the case only 7 GE 404s were acquired as the plan was to develop Kaveri. Only later additional 40 Ge 404 engines were acquired which incidentally also is the total number of MK 1s that have been ordered. (am not aware of any subsequent orders for 404. Though a tender is in process for 199 additional powerplants for which EJ and Ge are competing). As Kaveri did not meet development goals.

Considering the fact that Kaveri was to leverage on 404 it (kaveri) should have been be able to fit the LCA without any major redesign. Also the design ought to have factored the additional air in flow as mandated by a higher thrust engine as well as the dimension of the engine at the design stage it self.

If a redesign is still required because of airflow issue of a higher thrust engine. The same should have been observed in the preliminary analysis of the airflow itself. Leading to a redesigned inlet by now in a flying airframe. This has not happened as yet. This leads me to conclude that no inlet modification is required for the installation of a higher thrust engine.

So am still left with a question. What exactly is MK 2??

A simple answer reading the above seems to me as an airframe with the new engine with a preliminary production run of 199 aircrafts. Keeping in view the tender for a new engine.

Why?

Because the IAF will not acquire a second rate aircraft when it knows it can always import a top of the line aircraft. Having said so I believe that the Tejas compares very favourly with the best of the world as the confirmed and potential orders are 40 and 199 respectively.

Did the last made sense.

JMT



The current LCA had to modify it's existing intakes for use with the 404 as is evidenced by the hinged door that was added to the inlet (similar to those added to the Jaguar). So for use with 414 it would have to be redesigned; at the end of the day the net result of the analysis is that we under desgined the intake for the 404 and therefore the 414, now whether the Kaveri was designed to take in less air than the 404 (doubt it) or we didn't accurately calculate the intake size even for the Kaveri is a seperate issue. Only the designers know whether we under designed it for Kaveri or the Kaveri uses less air and thus needs smaller intakes than the 404.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby sohamn » 04 May 2010 20:47

TD1, TD2 and PV1 are not flying for a long time. Does anybody know the reasons for the same? Since, these aircrafts are not put up for static displays as well, there might just be something going on with these aircrafts.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 04 May 2010 21:22

Raveen wrote:The current LCA had to modify it's existing intakes for use with the 404 as is evidenced by the hinged door that was added to the inlet (similar to those added to the Jaguar). So for use with 414 it would have to be redesigned; at the end of the day the net result of the analysis is that we under desgined the intake for the 404 and therefore the 414, now whether the Kaveri was designed to take in less air than the 404 (doubt it) or we didn't accurately calculate the intake size even for the Kaveri is a seperate issue. Only the designers know whether we under designed it for Kaveri or the Kaveri uses less air and thus needs smaller intakes than the 404.


I know that Ajai Shukla started to talk about the auxilliary door on the intake as a way to increase airflow during periods when the engine requires more air flow, akin to the Jaguar design. I however, think that this may not be the correct explanation.

I was reading an article on Flow Improvement in a rectangular air intake by using submerged vortex generators by some Indian researchers..one thing that the article confirms is that the LCA's air intake is not just Y-shaped but also S-shaped..there is nearly no way that any radar waves will ever bounce off the LCA's engine compressor and find their way back out. Means that in addition to the LCA's small frontal surface area, the compressor is extremely shielded and will lead to miniscule RCS.

and I came across a para that probably explains the need for those auxilliary doors that are placed on the sides of the LCA intake. It may well be that its not to increase the air-flow as was being explained by Ajai Shukla but rather to re-energise the separated airflow which leads to drop in static pressure recovery near the duct exit when the airflow is at higher angles of attack (as during landing and take-off)..not sure but it seems so.

I'm quoting from the report http://www.jafmonline.net/modules/htmla ... 415-bp.pdf and on page 2 it states..

Guo and Seddon

(1983) investigated the swirl in an S-duct of typical aircraft intake proportions at different angle incidences. The static pressure recovery (CSP) reduced with the increase in angle of attack (CSP = 0.89 at 0°angle of attack and CSP = 0.37 at 30° angle of attack) and it could be improved by incorporating several mechanical devices at the inlet, such as, spoiler, fences etc. They studied two methods in order to reduce the magnitude of swirl by means of a spoiler and to reenergize the separated flow with the inflow of free stream air through auxiliary inlets.


in short, IMO those auxillary intakes have more to do with the intake design than the air flow needs of the engine..

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Sid » 07 May 2010 01:11

I was browsing through one of the pics by Kedar Karmarkar and saw this line on the wing's of LCA!! they look like crack or dysfunctional joint in the root of the wings!!! or there is some other explanation for this?

Image

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby PratikDas » 07 May 2010 02:33

Sid wrote:I was browsing through one of the pics by Kedar Karmarkar and saw this line on the wing's of LCA!! they look like crack or dysfunctional joint in the root of the wings!!! or there is some other explanation for this?

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7976/crackgr.jpg

Perhaps a strain gauge like the ones seen near the tail rotor on the LCH during flight trials: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/S ... +New+2.jpg

Credit: {tarmAK007} Inside story: Team LCH upbeat over maiden flight

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Sid » 07 May 2010 09:29

PratikDas wrote:
Sid wrote:I was browsing through one of the pics by Kedar Karmarkar and saw this line on the wing's of LCA!! they look like crack or dysfunctional joint in the root of the wings!!! or there is some other explanation for this?

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7976/crackgr.jpg

Perhaps a strain gauge like the ones seen near the tail rotor on the LCH during flight trials: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/S ... +New+2.jpg

Credit: {tarmAK007} Inside story: Team LCH upbeat over maiden flight


but is LCA supposed to have it? I can bet I saw this crack in other pics of LCA as well (i.e. at the roots of the wings).

Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Atri » 07 May 2010 11:54

naval LCA, may be???

Boudhayan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Boudhayan » 07 May 2010 14:14

Atri wrote:naval LCA, may be???



What has naval LCA got to do with this crack ?? :shock:

Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Atri » 07 May 2010 14:25

Boudhayan wrote:
Atri wrote:naval LCA, may be???



What has naval LCA got to do with this crack ?? :shock:


I know zilch about Hawai-Chaddar takneeki, hence the query.. Naval planes have their wings folded, so that more fighter planes can be accommodated on an aircraft carrier.. May be this thing which looks like a crack is that joint where the wing folds.. I don't know the technical terms for this type of design. Gurus might elaborate...

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Venu » 07 May 2010 14:42

Folding will be at the middle, not at the wing root. Also, I am not sure if NLCA will have a folding wing. This could be a strain gauge, as pratik mentioned.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Gagan » 07 May 2010 14:54

It is a joint. The wing is a separate piece. That is where it is likely joined to the fuselage.

Image

If you look closely you will see this on all LCA and also in all fighters / commercial aircrafts.

vcsekhar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 01 Aug 2009 13:27
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vcsekhar » 07 May 2010 15:28

Come on guys, There is no crack on the wing root of the LCA. It is a joint and is usually painted with a red colour on the grey LCA's;
Here is a pic from the same gallery in which this is very clearly seen.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... f.jpg.html

Sid wrote:I was browsing through one of the pics by Kedar Karmarkar and saw this line on the wing's of LCA!! they look like crack or dysfunctional joint in the root of the wings!!! or there is some other explanation for this?

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7976/crackgr.jpg

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vina » 07 May 2010 15:36

Well, I got buzzed by a dark gray LCA /Tejas some 10 mins ago, at pretty low level .. Dunno about any "cracks", but saw two white colored drop tanks and wing tip missiles.. Flew fast and low.

vcsekhar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 01 Aug 2009 13:27
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vcsekhar » 07 May 2010 16:43

I envy all you bengaluru BRF'ites... you get to see the LCA every so often, i have only seen it a couple of times when flying through the old blr/HAL airport.


vina wrote:Well, I got buzzed by a dark gray LCA /Tejas some 10 mins ago, at pretty low level .. Dunno about any "cracks", but saw two white colored drop tanks and wing tip missiles.. Flew fast and low.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9863
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 07 May 2010 16:45

The low no of orders for LCA is a serious problem. IAF is going to face Mig 21 variation from Chi panda and Bakis which can be taken down at any time by LCA. The lack of support from IAF was there even for Maruth also. Remember Maruch only needed a good Engine and IAF leadership could not even force the MOD to arrange for the same. They happly went for Natashas olgas and what not ruski goris

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby neerajb » 07 May 2010 17:43

Atri wrote:Naval planes have their wings folded, so that more fighter planes can be accommodated on an aircraft carrier.. May be this thing which looks like a crack is that joint where the wing folds.. I don't know the technical terms for this type of design. Gurus might elaborate...


Tejas doesn't need that as it already has a small wingspan and folding wing will impose weight penalty. An intresting observation:

It may be worth noting that the double-delta winged Draken, as well as the Mirage III/5/50, held the dubious distinction of having the lowest (actually worst) aspect ratio of any fighter to date (1.8 and 1.94 respectively), but this record has now been surpassed, surprisingly, by the very modern Tejas (1.75)!


http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/sea ... -results=4

Cheers....

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby karan_mc » 07 May 2010 18:57

sohamn wrote:TD1, TD2 and PV1 are not flying for a long time. Does anybody know the reasons for the same? Since, these aircrafts are not put up for static displays as well, there might just be something going on with these aircrafts.


TD-1 has been Dismantled and TD-2 is also out , PV-1 is been preserved for later integration of Kaveri engine into it and other test flight which will follow after kaveri is integrated ,not much to do with Tejas program now

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby karan_mc » 07 May 2010 19:00

@nukavarapu , if EJ-200 is perfect fit then why do they require 2 years for modification and integration into Tejas mk2 ? i don't think it is perfect fit it still requires some modification in engines to fit into Tejas

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Anabhaya » 07 May 2010 20:24

So I'm hoping they'll make a decision about the new engine sometime in the next 8 years, yes? :)

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shukla » 07 May 2010 20:29

Anabhaya wrote:So I'm hoping they'll make a decision about the new engine sometime in the next 8 years, yes? :)


If we are lucky :wink:

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kartik » 07 May 2010 21:39

Atri wrote:naval LCA, may be???


there is no crack so please stop all this talk about it having anything to do with N-LCA. the allowable damage limits to a composite structure (such as a panel) are so small as to be invisible to anyone viewing it in a photo from so far unless the surface indentation can be seen due to lighting effects.

Believe me, if you can "see a crack" in a picture, then only 2 possibilities exist- either you're wrong or the fighter is not going to be flight-worthy. period. Before any flight, the pilots do a walk-around and so do technicians and if they spot even a small dent or a crack due to (just for e.g) foreign object damage, then it will need inspection by technicians. If it is within the damage limits, it can fly, it not, the panel requires repair. Being a prototype, it will be inspected far more frequently than an in-service fighter for which the limits, inspection timelines, etc. are known.

I can't open the image at work, but if you're looking at the wing-root, then its not a crack. Its either the gap between panels or something else. The wing-root joint is one of the strongest on the aircraft and it is not visible directly due to the panels that cover it. Go and look for an image of the wing-root joint crack on a MiG-21 Bis (picture was shown in an NAL document and it is available on the net). Its too tiny to even see from a distance and that was the result of accelerated fatigue testing on a specimen to simulate 3500 hours of flying.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shiv » 07 May 2010 21:55

Sid wrote:I was browsing through one of the pics by Kedar Karmarkar and saw this line on the wing's of LCA!! they look like crack or dysfunctional joint in the root of the wings!!! or there is some other explanation for this?



Forget the crack Did you notice the hu-uuuge black tear behind the intake? Could it be the PV 1 being dismantled :mrgreen:

sivabala
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 10:55

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby sivabala » 07 May 2010 22:15

Kartik wrote:...

To Kartik:
Can you comment on the Kaiser-aeronaut blog's opinion on the aspect ratio of LCA being poor or worse. It would be nice to hear a scientific commentary. I think you are good with scientific analysis w.r.t. aircrafts.
Thx.
[Whine on<It has been a long time, since we had scientific discussion in this forum>Whine off]
Last edited by sivabala on 08 May 2010 00:40, edited 2 times in total.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 967
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby kvraghav » 07 May 2010 22:30

^^^
I too wanted to dig this up and went to wikipedia.It says that the lesser the aspect ratio,better is the manueverability.Can someone confirm on this?

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vina » 07 May 2010 22:40

TD-1 has been Dismantled and TD-2 is also out


Rats!.. Why did they have to do that ?. They could have taken out the engine, the avionics, and everything else of value out of it and given the shell/structure out to a museum or something. Why HAL's own museum and the Vishweshwaraya Museum or the Madrassa in Madras or the Science Madrassa.. All of them could have used it!.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vina » 07 May 2010 22:40

kvraghav wrote:^^^
Can someone confirm on this?


Get Enqyoob back!.. :evil: :evil: :evil:

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby PratikDas » 07 May 2010 22:49

sivabala wrote:
Kartik wrote:...

To Kartik:
Can you comment on the Kaiser-aeroblog's opinion on the aspect ratio of LCA being poor or worse. It would be nice to hear a scientific commentary. I think you are good with scientific analysis w.r.t. aircrafts.
Thx.
[Whine on<It has been a long time, since we had scientific discussion in this forum>Whine off]

AFAIK, none of the Mirages he's comparing the Tejas with or the Draken had fly-by-wire control.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4505
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby putnanja » 07 May 2010 22:52

what is kaiser-aeroblog? can some one post a link about his comments on LCA?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Katare » 08 May 2010 01:16

karan_mc wrote:
sohamn wrote:TD1, TD2 and PV1 are not flying for a long time. Does anybody know the reasons for the same? Since, these aircrafts are not put up for static displays as well, there might just be something going on with these aircrafts.


TD-1 has been Dismantled and TD-2 is also out , PV-1 is been preserved for later integration of Kaveri engine into it and other test flight which will follow after kaveri is integrated ,not much to do with Tejas program now


Is it chaiwalha info or published info?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests